CORAM
ADEMOLA CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
BRETT JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
BAIRAIMIAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
COKER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
LEWIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
THE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN
APPELLANTS
N.K. ADAMOLEJUN
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – SUPREMACY THE DECREE AND THE CONSITUTION OVER AN EDICT-OUSTER OF JURISDICTION
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Section 35 of the Court of Appeal Edict, W.N., No. 15 of 1967 provided that appeals from the High Court in the western region should lie to the court of appeal established by the edict including those in respect of which notices had been filed to the supreme court but not yet entered on the cause list.
HELD
The court held that the section is inconsistent with the right of direct appeal from the High Court to the Supreme Court under section 117 of the Constitution of the Federation and void.
ISSUES
Whether the court can enquire into the validity of Section 35 of the Court of Appeal Edict, W.N., No. 15 of 1967.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
SUPREMACY OF A DECREE OVER AN EDICT.
1 ‘If the Military Governor of a Region when making an Edict exceeds the powers conferred by a decree, it is void to the extent of the inconsistency.’ Per Ademola C.J.N
SUPREMACY OF A DECREE OVER AN EDICT.
2 ‘The courts can enquire whether an Edict is void to any extent under section 3 (4) of that Decree (No. 1 of 1966) which is the Decree authorising the making of Edicts within certain confined limits, and it is desirable for the legal advisers of a Military Governor to bear those limits in mind when drafting Edicts.’ Per Ademola C.J.N
CASES CITED
The Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. Irving [1905] A.C. 369
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. The Degree No.1 of 1966
2. The Constitution of the Federation 1963